Question for everyone: "IF" God exists, why did he create us?

[Burgold]

We know that there was never a global flood and that talking snakes do not exist... so we know that the Bible was wrong on some claims... but suppose the Bible turns out to be correct about some things. How would we know which ones? By comparing it with findings made by students of "Enlightenment/Modernist thinking"

Actually, I believe that geologists and anthropologists did indeed find evidence of this kind of flooding and that there was a remarkable uniformity in date. It was one of those really cool cross finds. Mind you, I still suspect that it is a bit of a tall tale and that the truth of it is less impressive than those presented in several cultural myths, but there does seem to be physical evidence of a Noah type flood.

[Jumbo]

What if it's "alien" or "predator" that's created in God's image, and we were created for food and sport.

It could arguably make sense given the way many things work. :evilg:

:

[PeterMP]

We know that there was never a global flood and that talking snakes do not exist... so we know that the Bible was wrong on some claims... but suppose the Bible turns out to be correct about some things. How would we know which ones? By comparing it with findings made by students of "Enlightenment/Modernist thinking"

It is not about just knowledge. It is about reliable knowledge. Some people stop coming up with stuff when their knowledge stops. Some people keep going even though they have no reasonable basis for it. They could be right. They could be wrong. They have no way of knowing that.

You really do believe most of the garbage you spew, don't you?

Why should murder be illegal?

[alexey]

You really do believe most of the garbage you spew, don't you?

Why should murder be illegal?

To protect me from your wrath.

[Jumbo]

You really do believe most of the garbage you spew, don't you?

Why should murder be illegal?

You're going to have to watch that, Peter. It seems apparent to me that alexy riles you up moreso than your norm, but other than the fact he hits on an area of serious meaning to you in a manner you really don't like, his actual presentation is no different in general style than a number of other well-known posters here with certain political/social leanings who regularly take a similar form. And they do so without drawing your ire as expressed in this fashion.

You're a respected and valued poster here, and one of my favorites (which as the vets here know means little of any worth :pfft:) but this is not the first time this matter has been raised and I'm hopeful you will adjust.

Whatever your opinions of them are, many of alexy's general views as typically stated are shared by a number of people. And he has been quite scrutinized for rule violations. He has not only avoided them, and been very cooperative, but is often more congenial in disagreement than some others in this forum, even as they also still remain within the rules in their cantankerousness.

Other than that, carry on.

[PeterMP]

To protect me from your wrath.

Ehhh, I haven't killed anybody yet, and as I've gotten older my desire to kill people has actually gone way done.

If you knew me when I was in my teens, I'd have probably thrown a few punches by now (and if not at you directly at a wall or something representing you).

But I've mellowed and hurt my hands too many times.

[Jumbo]

To protect me from your wrath.

Let's not provoke, in this case, please, even if within the bounds of what's allowed. I am not going to allow any continuous or escalating pissing match between two posters such as you and Peter that pushes at rule boundaries and gets either one of you a brief vacation if I can help it.

Argue and debate, but guard against baiting and insulting. There are people here who have shown they know how to regularly **** with each other and keep it within the lines but I don't think you two are cut out for it.

---------- Post added August-14th-2012 at 01:44 PM ----------

But I've mellowed and hurt my hands too many times.

I'm slowly improving on my "mellow" (my last physical fight was two years ago---disgraceful for someone of my age and in my profession) but my hands were hardened long ago so that's no helpful deterrent. I have to rely on maturity and sound judgment which seems to be very intermittent with me in certain matters.

[PeterMP]

I'm slowly improving on my "mellow" (my last physical fight was two years ago---disgraceful for someone of my age and in my profession) but my hands were hardened long ago so that's no helpful deterrent. I have to rely on maturity and sound judgment which seems to be very intermittent with me in certain matters.

You need to break some fingers.

(Some of yours. Not other people's.)

[Jumbo]

You need to break some fingers.

(Some of yours. Not other people's.)

Broke four over the years. You know the old training deal with jamming the spear hand into the wood buckets, working up from sand to pebbles to rocks? And the one where you wind the rope around trees to make striking suracesr? We did that when I was 13-22. You'd think I had been using my forehead given some of the decisions I've made. But enough OT from me. I really appreciate both of you guys' cooperation.

[alexey]

and how about RGIII? 4 for 6, 70 yards, 145.8 QB rating. Quick throws, 20+ yards with a flick of a wrist.

To address the question about morals:

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Secular_morality

Secular morality is morality that is derived from non-religious sources or considerations.

Theists usually believe that God is the author of morality, and that actions are only good or bad to the extent that God makes them so. A typical atheist rebuttal involves a reference to the Euthyphro dilemma: morality based on the absolute say-so of a supreme being seems to be no less arbitrary than the relativistic morality that theists decry.

This leaves open the question: how should unbelievers behave? Where does our understanding of morality ultimately come from? How do we know that our standards are correct in a meaningful and universal sense?

...

Although there is no such thing as unanimous agreement on complex philosophical issues, if we approach the question from a humanistic, scientific stand point, atheists ought to agree that there should be rational standards for arriving at moral conclusions. Like science and mathematics, useful systems of morality derive from some basic axioms, or recognize assumptions.

A few possible axioms in morality are:

Every person has their own feelings and desires, and they are more or less similar since they are based on the same brain chemistry.

When I look inward to my own desires, I fundamentally desire to pursue happiness and avoid pain and suffering.

Other people have these same basic desires, and these desires are valuable to them.

With all else being equal, it is better for people to be happy than not be happy.

Conflicts arise mainly because people's desire to be happy and avoid suffering conflict with each other. The goal of secular morality is to resolve those conflicts in the best possible way for all concerned.

A few natural consequences of these axioms:

All else being equal, it is wrong to needlessly inflict suffering on people.

Except for the case of self-preservation, with all else being equal, it is best to avoid killing other people (on the assumption that they don't want to be killed).

Actions such as slavery and rape are wrong because they excessively limit people's happiness and freedom of action.

Another interesting quote from there:

Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed, or nearly as well developed, as in man.

Other useful stuff here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

[PeterMP]

There is no reliable information to suggest that life is superior, better, or preferable to non-life.

There is no reliable information to suggest that human life is superior, better, or preferable to non-human life.

Anybody that contends that they stop at the level of reliable knowledge, needs to explain why they take antibiotics when sick.

---------- Post added August-14th-2012 at 05:16 PM ----------

, his actual presentation is no different in general style than a number of other well-known posters here with certain political/social leanings who regularly take a similar form. And they do so without drawing your ire as expressed in this fashion.

I suspect this isn't true.

I suspect that if you asked the likes of Corciagh, Predicto, and others that they will tell you that socities (including the US) are built on a large number of assumptions that thave no "reliable knowledge" on in terms of much of anything other than they are essentially an inhereted part of society.

But despite that, they recognize that those assumptions do exist and that they aren't really stopping at the level of "relliable knowledge" based on their actions with society.

[brandymac27]

What if we are our own God? What if somewhere out in the multiverse, there is another "us" or many others (that which most people here refer to as God) who is sitting around tugging and pulling on our strings? What if we really created ourselves.... just because we could?

[Jumbo]

I suspect this isn't true.

I suspect that if you asked the likes of Corciagh, Predicto, and others that they will tell you that socities (including the US) are built on a large number of assumptions that thave no "reliable knowledge" on in terms of much of anything other than they are essentially an inhereted part of society.

But despite that, they recognize that those assumptions do exist and that they aren't really stopping at the level of "relliable knowledge" based on their actions with society.

This post shows that despite the exact words I used in what you quoted, and even underlined to emphasize them, you still didn't get at what I was stating. Look at what you quoted again. To repeat, I even made a point of underlining because I suspected you might be clouded in your reaction given it involves the person who seems to have become a major foil for you.

I made it quite clear that I was referring to alexy's general style and form as a body of work. Read it again. In the matter of judgment of such style and forum conduct among long time regulars, I am comfortable with the proposition that I am much more objective and actually expert, both ES-wise and in general behavioral knowledge, to comment on this with credibility than anyone else involved.

You chose to isolate his comment on "reliable knowledge" and ran with that as though it applied to what you quoted. That's a downright unfortunate example of a semi-mild but increasing fixation here, IMO.

I almost banned you for a week (under rule 18) for your "I suspect this isn't true" reply, just based on how that came across, initially, to me. IMO, your ability to communicate is suffering. I have noted it off and on over the last number of weeks and have mentioned it to you. Awhile back, I even hinted you might be well served to take a break from the tailgate for awhile. I thought you did that for a few days and seemed more like your typical self for a bit. Take all that as you will, of course. My intentions have only been benign.

But I will cease posting about such matters, and indulging their too-OT nature at this point, and just do my thing.

[Burgold]

What if we are our own God? What if somewhere out in the multiverse, there is another "us" or many others (that which most people here refer to as God) who is sitting around tugging and pulling on our strings? What if we really created ourselves.... just because we could?

If I am my own Diety... I have some serious 'splaining to do' Why would I ordain these trials for myself? What am I?

Edit: Then again, life is largely good. Just missing a piece here or there which at this moment is making me dwell on the negative.

[No Excuses]

So if God is perfect, then every single thing He created performed exactly in the manner in which He wanted it to. Which means that every result was purposeful and desired.

If there is intentionality behind how particles interact and the things they end up forming (living or not), what does that say about God's nature that he would also create viruses and bacteria that cause immense pain and suffering to humans?

[alexey]

There is no reliable information to suggest that life is superior, better, or preferable to non-life.

There is no reliable information to suggest that human life is superior, better, or preferable to non-human life.

Anybody that contends that they stop at the level of reliable knowledge, needs to explain why they take antibiotics when sick.

Morality is about proper ways for existing intelligent life to behave, and there is plenty of reliable information about values that are common across most representatives of the existing intelligent life.

[PeterMP]

Morality is about proper ways for existing intelligent life to behave, and there is plenty of reliable information about values that are common across most representatives of the existing intelligent life.

But you don't really want to claim that "common" is "proper".

You wouldn't claim that slavery was ever "proper" and despite people have pointed out to you in multiple threads that it is still very common today you don't think that it is "proper" today.

Discrimination, and even worse, against homosexuals is very common amongst "existing intelligent life", but you wouldn't claim that it was "proper".

[SWFLSkins]

So we could make sushi?

[Jumbo]

So we could make sushi?

I heart fish in all its diversity.

Some might say it's not just brain food, but also soul food. :pfft:

[alexey]

But you don't really want to claim that "common" is "proper".

You wouldn't claim that slavery was ever "proper" and despite people have pointed out to you in multiple threads that it is still very common today you don't think that it is "proper" today.

Discrimination, and even worse, against homosexuals is very common amongst "existing intelligent life", but you wouldn't claim that it was "proper".

I am not referring to common social or religious norms but implications of common human anatomy combined with the Golden Rule.

[PeterMP]

I am not referring to common social or religious norms but implications of common human anatomy combined with the Golden Rule.

"there is plenty of reliable information about values that are common across most representatives of the existing intelligent life."

So instead of values you mean anatomy?

[alexey]

"there is plenty of reliable information about values that are common across most representatives of the existing intelligent life."

So instead of values you mean anatomy?

Fundamental human values come from our anatomy. Not wanting to get hurt, not wanting to die, protecting the children, etc.

[Jumbo]

Discrimination, and even worse, against homosexuals is very common amongst "existing intelligent life", but you wouldn't claim that it was "proper".

I've read a number of comments in a couple of threads on these topics that seem to suggest that secular approaches to morality (whether in premise or execution) are inherently flawed if they don't result in perfection of structure (argument) or actual behavior of the non-theist. I sense a recurring theme, from some posters in related threads, of the secular or non-theist individual being held to higher standards from proofs in argument to actual behaviors that seem to be more of a one-way street.

I might be missing something. Always possible given my limited multitasking skills. :pfft:

How about how believers who actually admit they believe that God not only exists, but know that certain behaviors are religiously sinful in their faith, but even so, willingly commit multiple sins repeatedly throughout their life? They are the first to note how far from perfection their own choices remain even with their belief powerfully affirmed, but do not count that lack of perfection as somehow invalidating (or even weakening) any legitimacy (or even efficacy)) of their claims for their basis of morality.

Of course, and it's a separate matter but if I don't state it here someone will, in the mistaken idea that it somehow is relevant to what I just worte in preceeing paragraph ), there is refuge for the Christian in their religion's views towards sin and forgiveness.

Having got that out of the way, why should secularist premises on morality be tied to some level of perfection totally unknown to believers? And while we're at it, would they not be allowed some refuge, too, perhaps in the knowledge "they will fall short of their ideals" (secular and all) and yet are called by the society of their fellows to strive to do better for the good of all?

All either the Christian or non-Christian person can do, whether they base their views of morality on a deity or not, is strive for the best with as much vigor as possible and be held accountable for their chosen behaviors.

Per "holes in arguments", how can the non-theist ever compete with "God's ways and nature--and this we know---are beyond understanding" etc. when it gets down to some final sticking point in some exchange (as it ever has). Many reasonable, decent, and highly intelligent people also find "holes" in even for the most sophisticated and extensively expanded Christian based arguments.

There are and always have been non-believers or people of non-Christian faiths who are as versed in logic, critical thinking, and of adequate intelligence as anyone else, to whom these presentations do not seem not to make sense in the end.

People who pretend that one way or the other has been actually argued out to a conclusion or "settled", based on rational and logical arguments and facts are fooling themselves as well as ignoring history and current reality.

Now believing something as a matter of faith or for some other existential reason is great as far as i'm concerned, and trying to learn all one can about a chosen belief system so one can answer as many questions as possible for yourself or another seems perfectly legit idea to me.

And my default position on tall this stuff is to respect it all until given reason to do otherwise, which is exactly how I look at the non-Christian or agnostic or atheist or anyone else who doesn't find comfort in one of these labels.

Ah-hah! The spaghetti's ready.

[PeterMP]

I've read a number of comments in a couple of threads on this matter that seem to suggest that secular approaches to morality (whether in premise or execution) are inherently flawed if they don't result in perfection of structure (argument) or actual behavior of the non-theist. I sense a recurring theme, from some posters in related threads, of the secular or non-theist individual being held to higher standards from proofs in argument to actual behaviors that seem to be more of a one-way street.

I think if you back track, you'll see I'm holding him to the level that he put forward as a critieque of the theists.

That is NOT being part of "reliable knowledge".

I'm happy to admit that I make "assumptions" that wouldn't pass alexey's level of "reliable knowledge" (by which he realistically means science).

(I won't even get into how reliable that actually is.)

---------- Post added August-14th-2012 at 11:37 PM ----------

Fundamental human values come from our anatomy. Not wanting to get hurt, not wanting to die, protecting the children, etc.

Those "values" aren't limited to "intelligent life" (unless you want to claim that essentially all life is intelligent).

And again, just because they are common doesn't mean they are proper.

Or the result of engaging the golden rule w/ respect to them is proper (or even that the golden rule is proper).

Since bacteria don't want to die is killing them improper?

[Jumbo]

I think if you back track, you'll see I'm holding him to the level that he put forward as a critieque of the theists.

That is NOT being part of "reliable knowledge".

I'm happy to admit that I make "assumptions" that wouldn't pass alexey's level of "reliable knowledge" (by which he realistically means science).

---------- Post added August-14th-2012 at 11:37 PM ----------

Those "values" aren't limited to "intelligent life" (unless you want to claim that essentially all life is intelligent).

And again, just because they are common doesn't mean they are proper.

Sauce is HOT. Minimal bacteria.

Wasn't singling you out amigo, your remark just revived that tangential thought and I was meandering a bit with my thoughts there in a rather generalized manner, but yeah, I really haven't deeply examined you two in terms of the actual "reliable knowledge" argument. The ladies of Covert Affairs and Rizzoli & Isles, along with my pasta, takes precedence.